Bengal ‘anti-goonda’ Bill returned by President; Oppn targets Suvendu govt

• President Droupadi Murmu has returned West Bengal’s Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, for reconsideration after the Centre flagged a potential conflict with the NDPS and PITNDPS laws.

• TMC, Congress and CPI(M) leaders have seized on the move to criticise the Suvendu Adhikari government and question the legislation’s legal basis and purpose.

• The state government can amend the disputed provision and reintroduce the Bill in the Assembly before sending it back for Presidential consideration.

West Bengal’s much-hyped and controversial ‘Anti-Goonda Bill’ has been returned by President Droupadi Murmu for reconsideration after the Centre flagged a potential conflict between one of its provisions and existing Central legislation on narcotics offences. The move has given the Opposition fresh ammunition against the Suvendu Adhikari government, while the state has indicated that it could amend the legislation and send it back for Presidential consideration.

Trinamool Congress national general-secretary Abhishek Banerjee mocked the government on social media, writing, 'Double engine on posters; reverse gear in governance. Homework sent straight back!'

TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee said, “We had been saying from the very beginning that this Bill had no legal basis.” Targeting Suvendu Adhikari, he added, “It is fortunate that the President did not sign this Bill; otherwise, our chief minister herself would have had to go to jail because of that law.”

State Congress president Shubhankar Sarkar said, “All sorts of farcical antics are playing out in the name of anti-goonda legislation. We welcome the President’s decision. On what grounds was this bill drafted and sent? This matter needs to be discussed in the Assembly now. Is there a shortage of laws in India to punish the guilty? In reality, they were attempting to introduce a law to suppress dissenting voices. We have witnessed enough theatrics regarding this legislation. Meanwhile, victims of oppression are not getting justice.”

CPI(M) leader Sujan Chakraborty also criticised the government, saying, “The chief minister had declared he would take such measures that three generations would remember them. Such grand rhetoric! Every day he poses for photos and quotes various proverbs. But there is a common Bengali saying: ‘an empty vessel makes the most noise.’ That is exactly the situation here; they are following the path of the previous government. Laws have been drafted twice on this issue, only to be rejected. The BJP is running a regime of intimidation in West Bengal. They are failing to learn a lesson despite repeated setbacks.”

The immediate issue, however, is a legal one. The Centre has objected to the Bill’s inclusion of people involved in offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act within its definition of a ‘goonda’. According to the Centre’s note, the provision could overlap with the preventive-detention framework under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, or PITNDPS Act. It has recommended deleting the reference to NDPS offences to avoid duplication and a possible conflict with central legislation under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, was passed by the Assembly in June. It provides for preventive detention of those accused of specified anti-social activities for up to 12 months and seeks to deal with organised anti-social activity, public disorder, vandalism and attacks on police personnel and public servants.

The Bill also empowers a district magistrate, commissioner of police or an authorised police officer of at least DIG rank to order a person to leave a specified area and prevent their return for up to one year. The person can also be required to report their movements to the authorities.

The legislation had already faced questions over its legal status. On 6 August, the Calcutta High Court dismissed three PILs challenging the Bill as premature, with the state informing the court that it was still awaiting Presidential assent. The court indicated that a fresh challenge could be made after the requisite assent.

The issue had also exposed a contradiction in the government’s earlier political messaging. Adhikari had spoken of the legislation as though it had already become operational and had said that those involved in violence during a 24 July protest would be proceeded against under the new laws. The state, however, subsequently told the high court that the Bill had not received Presidential assent.

The President’s decision does not end the legislative process. A senior state government official said the Bill could be brought back before the Assembly after making the necessary changes to provisions considered inconsistent with central law, following which it could again be sent to the President for assent.